Renewable Revolution

Agelbert NOTE: Az is short of Azozeo, a good man who has some beliefs that I do not agree with. I post this here because the pseudo Christian lawyer Ashvin is engaging in ridicule and dripping sarcasm that is totally unwarranted and highly unethical. The name "Ashvin" is not an internet handle, it's his real first name. 

Quote from: Ashvin on June 21, 2016, 04:17:31 pm

Lawyers also know when someone is trying to avoid the substantive issues and distract from them because they have no arguments. Read the title of this thread, and then tell me how AZ has posted anything related to it, except his first statement that "there is only one set of rules - physics".

Also, how about showing a little intellectual honesty and backbone and telling your pal AZ that you completely disagree with his naturalist worldview. That is if you haven't already given up core Christian theology for ET conspiracy theories and Planet X annihilation any-day-now predictions.

LOL... was that this thread?  I don't read threads, as a rule I read messages in the "Most Recent 100" view, so I only respond to the parts of the thread that are quoted in a particular message.  Heck, I don't even know if this comment is directed at me, but I'll answer it anyway.

I don't completely disagree with AZ's naturalistic worldview, I only fundamentally disagree with it.  Kind of like with how when once you understand and accept General Relativity, you realize that Newtonian Mechanics isn't exactly true anyplace in the universe -- but it's close enough most of the time.  Like with evolution: I believe in the fact of macroevolution, but from my perspective it is the tool God uses to create new species.  My worldview is big enough to encompass both Jesus and little green men.

Jd,
I recommend you take a step back and analyze the nature of the post by learned counsel more closely. Since I am a "paranoid whacko" (and that post came RIGHT AFTER MY post), I suspect that it was directed at me in a clever goal post moving, attack the messenger type of fallacious debating technique, RATHER than addressing the issue of empathy deficit disordered sophistry.

To those who will claim, no doubt, that sophistry is not germane to the debate here, I beg to differ.

The POINT Az was trying to make was that he was rewarded with BILE. I explained, in my post, that attacking the validity of an opponent's allegations is what lawyers DO. But when they see that their methodology is being exposed, they then attack anyone trying to expose it by attempting to sidestep the attack the messenger bullshit they are engaging in with claims of the new poster's hypocrisy.

This is most clever. It steers the thread away from the Machiavellian dismissal of Az's discussion of Hopi prophesies (etc.) to an attempt to silence anyone, like me, who disagrees with some of Az's beliefs, but agrees with the importance of taking seriously the validity of the scholarship on Hopi prophesies and anything else Az says.

Any charge of using unethical debating sophistry can also be countered with sophistry. That is the "beauty" of being an accomplished goal post mover. The previous paragraph can be parsed into sections with witty remarks like "Projection here", "Paranoia over here", "hypersensitivity there", "I never said that" AND, "where do you get this stuff?". All those remarks are MORE attack the messenger type verbal guided missiles that continue to serve the main purpose of the sophist; that is, to avoid treating the opponent as a credible person, that whether they are right or wrong, must be given respect.

The sophist will vociferously deny the above charge and claim they consistently provide all debating opponents with respect, as is their Christian duty. They will ask for a record of examples of their alleged "lack of respect". They claim these charges are ridiculous. When a detailed and irrefutable list is not quickly produced, they accuse the accusers of being out to lunch.

If that doesn't work, a clever sophist, when faced with a group of people pointing out his sophistry, will claim he is being unfairly victimized and refuse to continue the discussion. He will pick up his marbles and go home because level verbal playing fields are not something sophists are fond of.

The legal "profession" was founded on sophistry (lawyers will vociferously deny this and claim it's all about providing the wonderful legal system we "enjoy today" that evolved from "humble beginnings"  ). The Sophists claimed that any side of an argument could be won, if argued "effectively" (regardless of whether it is true or not). Lawyers are about wining arguments.

Ashvin is a lawyer.

Obviously, the above cartoonish representation of bats debating has nothing to do with bats. Bats, due to their fondness for fruit, do not engage in fruitless debates.